Phil Bowermaster endeavors to "straighten" the public out on two issues on which it is "desperately misinformed." Well, not to be shy about admitting my state of mind, I've been feeling askew, lately, so let's see what Phil's got to say about issue #1, cloning:
It isn't magic. It isn't playing God. It isn't new.Nature creates human clones all the time in the form of identical twins. Reproductive cloning would be nothing more than producing a late-arriving identical twin. Not the same person. The camera doesn't steal your soul, and neither will a clone. As I said, there are social reasons why this might not be a good idea, but can we please for the love of God get the idea that there is something uncanny or "spooky" about cloning out of our heads? There isn't.
Okay, so let's follow it straight through. Phil begins with three assertions, the middle of which is that cloning is not "playing God." His first bit of supporting argument is that... hmmm... I can't claim an inside view of Mother Nature's ontology, but as a theist, it looks to me as if Phil is suggesting that cloning isn't playing God because, well, God clones twins. Curious; doing as God and only God has done is not playing God. Noted.
Moving along, while I'll agree that it would be harmonious with the love of God to refrain from describing Him in such pagan-sounding language as "spooky," it seems to me that Phil's argument that doing as God does is not "playing God" raises a question: can cloning be "new" and "spooky" because we've never done it before? We lack the capacity to unleash a force approximating a supernova, but I suspect even Phil would agree that the technology would be "new" when it first came about. And I for one think the human race's having access to such a power would be somewhat beyond spooky.
But perhaps this sort of thinking is just an indication of the "desperately misinformed" foundation of my logic. So let's forge on, taking the straightened out path and understanding that doing as only God does is not "playing God," that doing something that we've never done before is not "new," and that doing something arguably "a: seeming to have a supernatural character or origin... b: being beyond what is normal or expected" (M-w.com) is not "uncanny."
Issue #2 is "the human development cycle," about which Phil quotes another blogger as follows:
In my book, a human is someone you can converse with, who can think, feel pain, and suffer the effects of Alzheimer's or heart disease. An embryo has none of those characteristics.
Again, excuse my askew thinking, but that seems like an awfully limited definition of "human." Most loosely understood, it would seem to exclude anybody who is currently unconscious; strictly understood, it would also seem to exclude anybody who isn't currently suffering "the effects of Alzheimer's or heart disease." I suppose the blogger, with the pseudonym of "Reason," means to imply a modifier akin to "possibly at some future date." But if that's the case, I have to admit that I don't see why an embryo wouldn't count. One needn't wait much longer to converse with an embryo than with a newborn. Maybe Phil can clarify:
It [an early-stage human being"a mass of undifferentiated stem cells"] doesn't have a head or a heart or a nervous system. Those things start to kick in around week five, and take recognizable shape somewhere around week eight.
I see. The "it" isn't a human being until somebody adds a head or a heart or a... hey, wait a second. Who does add those things? Well, inasmuch as the it develops those parts of its own volition, it seems to make the most sense to give the it the credit. But if it can advance itself along the stages, what justifies drawing the Line of Personhood before an accomplishment that the it just hasn't managed to get around to, yet? Phil's next paragraph appears to begin with the intended answer:
If we, as a society, can define humanity as starting somewhere after the fourth week of embryonic development, we open up the possibility of tremendous medical advances.
Okay, I think I'm starting to catch on now. It isn't some stage of development whereby either the new life or nature draws a line; rather we, "as a society," draw the line because it suits us to do so. Just get over that hump of believing that lines ought to lie where we find them drawn, and it's all easy moral sailing from there. Or is it?
A few years from now, it may be possible to create an embryonic clone of myself. ... Let's consider that embryo at four weeks. If I put it in the right environment, that blastocyst might grow into my identical twin brother. It isn't my twin brother now. It's just some growing tissue taken from my body and an egg I borrowed from somebody else. ...... If I am injured or get sick, part of this collection of cells will be reintroduced into the organism from which it came — that would be me — to help it recover. As I age, more of the cells might be introduced to help counteract the effects; still others might be put on a new developmental path towards being a finished "part": a heart or a set of lungs or a new pair of eyes.
Here's a question: what if we discover that it's more effective to allow the it to get "a head or a heart or a nervous system... or a set of lungs or a new pair of eyes" started? Can we do that? Can we, as a society, just decide that a clone's life starts after the eighth week... or the eighth year? It'd be for all the right reasons; we don't want real (i.e., suffering) persons to die. And after all, the fact that a clump of cells begins to breathe at a certain point "doesn't mean it's the only place where the line can be drawn, or even the best place."
Well, I think I'm straightened out, now, and frankly, I'm a bit spooked by the small number of paragraphs that it takes to get around to this:
Why would anyone insist that it has to grow into a different human being? Says who? My twin brother can't demand that he has a right to exist. I never have to create a clone in the first place. And if I do create one, I assert that I have the right (before it grows into a separate and distinct human being) to decide that it will be me, rather than him, when it grows up.
Perhaps a refusal to offer free will to life that we create is what steers us clear of "playing God." Forgive my "superstitious dread," but I can't help but feel that it steers us toward playing somebody else.
(via Instapundit)
Posted by Justin Katz at December 5, 2004 1:02 AMBowermaster would treat the twinning procedure as if it did not require loss of human dignity and human life. He would rationalize a peculiar institution.
He pretends that the medical procedure would merely combine his freely contributed cells with an ovum borrowed (borrowed?) from someone else.
>> Mix the ingredients in a large bowl, beat until thickened, then spoon onto a pre-greased cookie sheet and place in warm oven until animated to desired criteria. Serve before the fourth week. For other recipe ideas on use of discards and remnants, see section on leftovers.
This transaction would necessarily begin with the dehumanization of the two contributors who, according to Bowermaster, would presumably be situated comfortably on the other side of the line he would draw. Their desires are presumed to have merit. The personhood of the twin, presumed postponed indefinitely.
A delayed twin (delayed?) is not a human being, he says, and thus Bowermaster would be entitled to treat as property the life and substance of his own flesh and blood. Whether the goal is to harvest cells, organs, or even limbs, and to put them to use for himself or to "loan" them to other human beings, the life of his twin would be benefitial only in serving the will of Bowermaster.
One wonders if he would have made the same claim had his mother born a twin the old fashioned way. One wonders how thick blood really is in his thiking.
Slavery was never more complete than in the brave new world envisioned by Bowermaster. The spark that enlivens the flesh that he would treat as his own property is individualized. Bowermaster could no more own the life of a "delayed twin" than he can today claim to rule the life of an adult sibling, neighbour, or offspring. The delay is not in the arrival of the spark of life, but in Bowermaster's acknowledgement of that which animates all of us.
The transaction he envisons would see slave and slavemaster dehumanized. He envisons a society that would institutionalize such a relationship and remove it to his own superstitions about an amoral medical technology.
Posted by: Chairm at December 5, 2004 6:17 AMGreat posting and comment. Let me add Chairm...until their Spartacus comes along. The slaves eventually will rise against their masters. Well anyway this is horrible, creating zombies, monsters...sorry, have to go puke.
Posted by: Miguel at December 6, 2004 5:25 AMVery, very good analysis of this piece. It always strikes me as odd that those who decry certain positions as essentially superstitious are so suspectible to bad thinking and inferior logic.
Bowermaster's piece reminds me of my basic formulation of the abortion question. I contend the fundamentals are: (1) is the entity inside a woman a person? and (2) do we discover that or decide that? Bowermaster clearly thinks that whatever the answer to (1), the answer to (2) is that we decide. The odd thing is, I bet he doesn't see the monstrosity in explicitly deciding when something becomes a person, especially in terms of that entity's worth to another. Some of the comparisons of abortion to slavery are far-fetched, but there's something similar when it comes to personhood.
Posted by: slarrow at December 6, 2004 1:52 PMJustin --
No question about it, there's plenty to regret about my blog entry from last February. Annoyed by what I took to be Leon Kass's almost willful misunderstanding of cloning, I wrote with flippancy and sarcasm where I should have taken care to be clear and to treat serious issues seriously. As I've demonstrated many times in the past, being a wise guy proves a better way to generate heat than light. If your fisking had just been a matter of slapping me down for being a jerk, I would not only willingly take my lumps, I would thank you for doing something of a public service. However, I stand accused by you and your readers of being something far worse than a jerk. I am characterized as a monster, an advocate of slavery, a fiend who would casually redefine humanity to serve his own selfish purposes, and (if I read your last line correctly) Satan's agent here on earth. Not surprisingly, I take exception to these characterizations.
First, I want to point out something that initially Glenn and then several subsequent commentors have overlooked -- that I republished this entry as a negative example. At this point, I'm not sure that the arguments I made there are tenable. I've written more than once since then that the best solution to the question of embryonic stem cell research will be to find a philosophical win-win: techniques for harvesting such cells that will not require harming a human embryo. The use of cell-lines derived from umbilical cord blood (commenting on which originally led me to republish this older entry) is a step in that direction, as is the news reported in a susbequent entry about cells derived from eggs which have been chemically coaxed into dividing as though fertilized. The resulting parthenogenetic blastocyst cannot develop into a baby. It's a collection of cells that is not an embryo, although it shares some characteristics with an embryo. I think the best approaches to therapeutic cloning will be along the same lines -- finding a way to reap the benefits without harming a life that could grow into a human being.
I don't come to this position because I'm convinced that a fertilized egg is a human being. I don't believe that to be the case. However, I recognize that those who do believe that could no more accept the use of embryos for research than I would accept killing and freezing toddlers to use for spare body parts. Just as there is nothing that anyone could ever say that would persuade me that it would be okay to set up toddler body-part farms, nothing is ever going to persuade you and your readers that a human embryo can be treated like any other tiny blob of cells. Fine. Let's not argue. I'm inclined to go with your definition. The argument is not only tiresome, it's a huge distraction from getting work done in these areas.
But before I leave that debate altogether, I want to clarify something.
You wrote:
Okay, I think I'm starting to catch on now. It isn't some stage of development whereby either the new life or nature draws a line; rather we, "as a society," draw the line because it suits us to do so. Just get over that hump of believing that lines ought to lie where we find them drawn, and it's all easy moral sailing from there.I don't believe that we get to "decide" when humanity and personhood begin. Like you, I believe that humanity and personhood are real properties. When I talk about society "drawing a line," I'm talking about creating a legal fiction. Our current legal fiction on the subject is embodied in Roe Vs. Wade. I would like to see that changed...in the direction of proximity to conception. Ideally, our legal definition of when humanity begins would reflect the reality. I happen to believe that the reality is somewhere between conception and where the line is currently drawn. But the inevitable response to that position is to ask what about other people who draw the line differently? So, again, I'm inclined to say let's go with your definition.
However, although I'm inclined to go in that direction, I wonder whether it will be enough. Let's go back to the technique discussed above to get an egg to imitate the early stages of embryonic development. I'm hoping that some derivitive technique might one day enable us to harvest embryonic stem cells with our own DNA without creating a clone embryo. But even if no embryo is created, and no budding human life is stopped, wouldn't Chairm still object to such a practice on the grounds that it "dehumanizes the contributors?" And, seeing as only God has created clones up to now, wouldn't you object to it on the grounds that cloning is "playing God?"
You wrote:
"Okay, so let's follow it straight through. Phil begins with three assertions, the middle of which is that cloning is not "playing God." His first bit of supporting argument is that... hmmm... I can't claim an inside view of Mother Nature's ontology, but as a theist, it looks to me as if Phil is suggesting that cloning isn't playing God because, well, God clones twins. Curious; doing as God and only God has done is not playing God. Noted."
Hmmm...At one point, only God had ever made a limb. Was it "playing God" to invent the first prosthetic leg? There was a time when only God had ever started a heartbeat. Was the first doctor who used electric resuscitating paddles "playing God?" And I can only assume that you think that in vitro fertilization is "playing God."
Chairm wrote:
"A delayed twin (delayed?) is not a human being, he says..."
1. Delayed -- a twin arriving much later than its original, rather than developing during the same period of gestation.
2. No, I think a clone is as human as anyone else. That's my entire point. Again, I don't believe that a mass of undifferentiated cells is a human being, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it's a clone.
The whole spooky/magic/playing God business comes down to this issue. Perhaps cloning is an extraordinary procedure, but it's results are pretty mundane.
Miguel wrote:
"Well anyway this is horrible, creating zombies, monsters...sorry, have to go puke."
Hope you're feeling better. Your zombies and monsters tend to back up what I was saying -- people want to make cloning into something much stranger than it really is. Do you believe that the stem cell lines that are currently used therapeutically are zombies and monsters?
slarrow wrote:
Very, very good analysis of this piece. It always strikes me as odd that those who decry certain positions as essentially superstitious are so suspectible to bad thinking and inferior logic.
Maybe "superstitious dread" overstated the case, but I still maintain that Leon Kass has me beat where it comes to "bad thinking and inferior logic." He was advocating killing blastocysts because they're clones. If you think a blastocyst is a human being, don't you think it's kind of harsh to suggest murdering it just because it has the same DNA as someone else?
Posted by: Phil Bowermaster at December 8, 2004 6:22 PM
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |